The Threat of Censorship in Mental Health
The Struggle for Truth in the Information Age
In the era of easy access to information, anyone with an internet connection can present their views, regardless of their validity. This becomes particularly concerning during a global health crisis, where misinformation can have deadly consequences. As fear drives people to seek accurate information, a new approach to discussing medical information emerges. The prefixing of 'dis-' or 'mis-' is used to distinguish good ideas from bad ones. However, this raises the question of who has the authority to make these distinctions.
Who Decides What is True?
Major online platforms often defer to institutions authorized by government bodies, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization, to determine what constitutes medical truth. These institutions provide guidelines which third-party fact-checking organizations then use to identify and remove false information. This form of soft censorship allows dissenting voices to speak, but reduces their chances of being heard.
Regulating Information: A Double-Edged Sword
While some may argue that suppressing false medical information during a pandemic is necessary for public safety, this power can easily be misused. A recent opinion piece in the New York Times suggested that this soft censorship should extend to all medical fields, not just pandemic-related information. This raises concerns about the impact such censorship could have on mental health discourse.
The Impact on Mental Health Discourse
Consider a Facebook group dedicated to discussing the withdrawal from antipsychotics. If a member suggests that antipsychotics cause brain damage and advises another on how to stop taking them without detection, this could attract the attention of fact-checkers. This could lead to a situation where any information that discourages treatment is deemed hazardous, potentially stifling alternative perspectives and treatments.
The Dangers of Labeling Misinformation
The US Surgeon General has declared health misinformation to be a serious threat to public health. This has led to calls for efforts to limit the spread of such misinformation. However, this approach risks reinforcing the idea that doctors are always right and may overlook the structural reasons why people turn to misinformation in the first place.
The Role of Social Media Companies
Social media companies, such as Facebook's parent company Meta, are not threatened by the framing of the problem as one of information itself. This allows them to avoid regulatory scrutiny while continuing to profit from their algorithms. It also obscures the underlying reasons why people turn to misinformation, such as economic hardship, community breakdown, and institutional distrust.
Anecdotal Evidence and the Search for Relief
When faced with chronic pain from an autoimmune disease, I too turned to unconventional treatments. Despite warnings from medical professionals, I tried an industrial solvent in a desperate attempt to find relief. While it didn't alleviate my pain, it gave me a sense of control and freedom. This experience illustrates the dangers of limiting access to alternative perspectives and treatments.
Bottom Line
The threat of censorship in mental health discourse raises important questions about who has the authority to distinguish between truth and misinformation. While it's crucial to combat false information, especially during a health crisis, it's equally important to ensure that alternative perspectives and treatments aren't silenced. What are your thoughts on this issue? Share this article with your friends and sign up for the Daily Briefing at 6pm every day to stay informed.
